This invention relates generally to the field of valves and more specifically to a machine for allowing different flow rates in different directions of fluid or gas in a conduit.
In fluid delivery systems wherein fluid or gas is transferred from a reservoir to an end user, a well or cistern system, for example, there is generally a pump communicating with a tank that maintains pressure in the system. The pump is often powered by an electric motor.
It is the nature of electric motors that when they are started, a significant amount of heat is created, which heat, if not dissipated rapidly will cause damage to the motor thus decreasing its useful life span. To accomplish this desired heat dissipation, electric motors are usually equipped with cooling means that is powered by the operation of the motor itself. Thus, to be sure that the motor is sufficiently cooled after initial start-up, manufacturers generally recommend a minimum run time for each particular motor. Therefore, if an electric motor is to be used to power a pump in such a system previously described, the associated tank must be of sufficient capacity to allow the motor to run for at least its minimum recommended run time. For example, if the flow rate of a pump is 20 gallons per minute, and the minimum run time for the motor is 1 minute, then the tank must have at least a 20 gallon available void if the motor is to run for its minimum recommended run time of one minute.
Tanks and piping are expensive. So expensive, in fact, that their cost is a major obstacle to economical construction of fluid delivery systems. Economy of construction can be realized for these systems if tank sizes can be reduced and if the same conduit bearing fluid or gas into the tank may also be used to bear fluid or gas out of the tank when demanded by the end user.
Therefore, a means and method are needed to limit the flow of fluid or gas pumped towards the tank so that a smaller tank may be used without dropping below minimum pump run times, while still allowing full flow in the opposite direction out of the tank to the end user.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,926,658 by Olsen et al discloses a two way refrigerant control device for a heat pump system comprising a valve body having a plurality of axial passages and a thin annular washer-like valve member disposed in the valve body and movable to close or open the particular axial passages, this system further comprising an expansion chamber.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,265,438 by Knowles et al teaches a fluid flow circuit intended for use with heat pumps having a flow control valve comprising a pair of restrictor assemblies positioned in opposed relationship, the first restrictor assembly providing for restricted flow in one direction and unrestricted flow in the opposed opposite direction.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,345,780 by Aaron et al discloses a bi-flow expansion device wherein fluid may travel to and fro with different flow rates in each direction, this device comprising, in one embodiment, a stationary asymmetrical element within a conduit, and in a second embodiment, a movable element with a plurality of axial passages, this element free to reciprocate between a first stopping means and a second stopping means in a conduit, these first and second stopping means having different configurations such that more axial passages in the movable element will be blocked in one stopping position than in the other. In a third embodiment, Aaron, et al teaches a stationary asymmetrical element having a plurality of axial passages, one of these axial passages being blockable by a movable blocking element fixed within the stationary structure.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,704,947 by Schneider teaches a valve for regulating the bi-directional flow of fluid wherein the flow resistance in one direction can be increased, this valve comprising a spool member slidably mounted within the valve, and a bias means that must be overcome to move the valve so that flow may be restricted.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,554,213 by Yoshino discloses a bi-directional valve that splits a flow of fluid into two streams traveling in one direction and combines the two streams of fluid into one stream when traveling in the opposite direction. Yoshino further teaches slidable spools within a fluid passageway.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,988,984 by Austin teaches a valve device to be placed between a pump and a pressure reservoir in a fluid delivery system, this device comprising a diaphragm and a spring.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,438,392 by Wilson discloses a valve construction allowing flow in opposite directions comprising a first element adjustable to allow a range of flow from a maximum to complete shut off and a second element biased toward complete shut off position.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,104,676 by Steer teaches a multidirectional valve comprising a biasing element. Steer further teaches means to completely shut off flow.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,507,468 by Evans teaches a bi-directional flow control valve comprising multiple flow restrictors and a means to cause phase changes of the fluid passing through this valve.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,863,504 B2 by Kimberlin et al and U.S. Pat. No. 6,742,540 B2 by Kim disclose bi-directional control devices which allow for pressure relief and for the complete cut off of flow of fluid in a particular direction.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,748,965 B2 by Lee teaches a double directional check valve and flow restrictor comprising a T-shaped housing, a spring, and a plurality of poppet valve arms. Lee further teaches completely shutting off a flow of fluid and dividing a flow stream into separate streams.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,854,270 B2 by Zenker et al teaches a valve that divides a flow into separate streams and completely shuts off the flow of fluid in a particular direction.
In contrast to Olsen et al (U.S. Pat. No. 4,926,658), the present art is more simple in design and construction comprising, for example, no plurality of axial passages in a cylindrical body nor an expansion chamber. In further contrast, the instant disclosure teaches allowance of substantially full flow in one direction but lesser restricted flow in the opposite direction these flow rates being dependent upon position of the pivotable valve only, but, Olsen teaches variance of flow rate from one direction of flow to another requiring communication with the axial passages of a thin washer-like valve element that blocks particular annular passages when flow is in one direction and different annular passages when flow direction is the opposite. In further contrast to the instant art, Olsen et al teaches no adjustability of the flow rate in a particular direction.
In contrast to Knowles et al (U.S. Pat. No. 5,265,438), the instant disclosure teaches no plurality of restrictor assemblies. In further contrast to Knowles et al, the instant art recites one pivotable valve element rather than two slidable valve elements taught by Knowles et al. Furthermore, the instant disclosure is more simple in design and construction and so may be fabricated with greater economy of labor and material than Knowles et al.
In contrast to these embodiments of Aaron et al (U.S. Pat. No. 5,345,780), the present art teaches no asymmetrical stationary member as in one embodiment of Aaron et al, no adjustability of flow rate by means of alternate blocking of axial passages in a movable element, this blocking depending upon the geometry of stop elements, nor adjustability of flow rate by means of alternately blocking or unblocking of an axial passage in an asymmetrical element by a blocking element movably fixed within this asymmetrical element.
Furthermore, the instant art is more simple than Aaron et al and may be fabricated and assembled with greater economy of labor and material than Aaron et al.
In contrast to Schneider (U.S. Pat. No. 4,704,947), the instant art teaches a pivotable valve element as opposed to the slidable spool member taught by Schneider. In addition, the present art is more simple and may be fabricated and assembled with greater economy of labor and material than Schneider. The instant art is therefore an improvement over Schneider.
In substantial contrast to Yoshino (U.S. Pat. No. 3,554,213), the instant disclosure teaches no slidable spool elements. Nor does the present disclosure teach dividing a stream into two separate streams nor combining separate streams into one stream. In further contrast to Yoshino, the instant art teaches away from completely shutting off fluid flow in any particular direction. Furthermore, the instant art lacks the complexity of design and manufacture of Yoshino so therefore may be fabricated with greater economy of labor and material than Yoshino.
In substantial contrast to Austin (U.S. Pat. No. 5,988,984), the instant disclosure teaches a valve having a movable valve element whose position may vary according to the direction of travel of the fluid through the valve by the force exerted by this fluid. Furthermore, Austin teaches a biasing element in contrast to some embodiments of the present art.
In substantial contrast to Wilson (U.S. Pat. No. 3,438,392), the instant disclosure teaches a single flow control member, this flow control member movable according to the direction of flow of a fluid through the valve by the force of this fluid moving through the valve. In further contrast to Wilson, the instant art does not teach complete shut off of fluid flow in any direction. The instant art is more simple than Wilson and may be more cheaply manufactured and assembled.
In substantial contrast to Steer (U.S. Pat. No. 3,104,676), the instant art teaches no complete shut off of fluid flow in any particular direction. In yet further contrast to Steer, the instant art discloses no stationary fluid control element having an axial passage. Furthermore, the instant disclosure is substantially more simple in design and manufacture than Steer.
In contrast to Evans (U.S. Pat. No. 3,104,676), the instant disclosure teaches one flow control element in the form of a pivotable valve element rather than a plurality of sliding valve control elements as taught by Evans. In further contrast to Evans, the instant art teaches no means to affect phase change in the fluid passing through a valve. In still further contrast to Evans, the instant art is much more simple in design and manufacture than Evans. The instant disclosure is therefore an improvement over Evans.
In contrast to Kimberlin et al (U.S. Pat. No. 6,863,504 B2) and Kim (U.S. Pat. No. 6,742,540 B2), the instant art teaches no bias means in some embodiments. In further contrast to Kimberlin et al and Kim, the instant art teaches away from allowing pressure relief. In further contrast to Kimberlin et al and Kim, the instant art does not teach complete shut off of flow in a particular direction.
In substantial contrast to the instant art, Lee (U.S. Pat. No. 6,748,965 B2) teaches a plurality of valve control elements. In further contrast to the present art, Lee teaches the complete cutting off of fluid in a particular direction. In still further contrast to the instant disclosure, Lee teaches dividing a stream of fluid into two streams. In further contrast to Lee, the instant art is less complex and may be fabricated and assembled with greater economy of labor and material than Lee.
In contrast to the instant art, Zenker et al (U.S. Pat. No. 6,854,270 B2) teaches splitting a stream of fluid into two streams. In further contrast to the instant art, the Zenker disclosure is much more complex in design and manufacture than the instant art.